event. A retroactive statute operates backwards. A retrospective statute
operates forwards, but it looks backwards in that it attaches new consequences for the future to an event that took place before the statute
was enacted. A retroactive statute changes the law from what it was;
a retrospective statute changes the law from what it otherwise would
be with respect to a prior event.

(Emphasis in original)

[40] In my view, the order under appeal amounts to a retroactive application of the 2014 by-law. However, by its terms, the
2014 by-law has neither retroactive nor retrospective application. The 2014 by-law does not operate retrospectively by attaching new consequences for the future with respect to a prior
event. The purpose and effect of the 2014 by-law is to require a
permit based upon standards set in 2014 for the dumping of fill
or alteration of the grade of land. To require Airpark to obtain
a permit in 2014 based upon standards set in 2014 for work
already conducted years ago in 2008 and 2009 is plainly to change
the law from what it was at the time the work was undertaken.

[41] Airpark relies upon the presumption that legislation is
not to be applied retroactively “unless such a construction is
expressly or by necessary implication required by the language
of the Act”: Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1977]
1 S.C.R. 271, [1975] S.C.J. No.116, at p. 279 S.C.R. I see no language in the 2014 by-law to suggest that it was intended to
operate retroactively. As I have noted, the 2014 by-law does provide for remedial work where dumping or altering the grade
took place without a permit. However, those provisions apply
only to work conducted without a permit having been issued
under the 2014 by-law. I see nothing in the by-law indicating an
intention to reach back in time and apply the standards of 2014
to work done before the 2014 by-law was enacted.

[42] A suggestion was made during oral argument that some
significance should be attached to the distinction between
“place” and “permit” in s. 2.02. Section 2.02 provides that “no
person shall place, dump, cut or remove any fill, or cause or
permit the placing, dumping, cutting or removal of fill on, nor
alter or cause or permit the alteration of the grade of any lands
in the City” without the required site alteration permit (
emphasis added). It was suggested that, as the by-law forbids permit-ting the dumping of fill or the alteration of the grade, it might be
applied to Airpark’s situation retrospectively rather than retroactively as Airpark has permitted the fill to remain and the
grade to be altered after the 2014 by-law was enacted.

[43] In my view, that reading of s. 2.02 cannot withstand
analysis. The entire thrust and purpose of s. 2.02 is to require a
site alteration permit before any work is done. In that context,